Madhya Pradesh High Court
Miss.Dheeraj Batham vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 14 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1245
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP 754/2006 (S)
Miss Dheeraj Batham and Others vs. MP Public Service
Commission & Ors.
Gwalior, dtd. 14/02/2019
Shri Anil Sharma, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sangam Jain, counsel for the respondent No.1- PSC.
Shri S. N. Seth, Governmnt Advocate for the respondent No.2 (i) & (ii)/ State.
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the notice dated 11th November, 2005 (Annexure P1), by which the candidature of petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that they have not submitted the caste certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. SDO (Revenue) or any Superior Officer.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that all the petitioners claim that they belong to Scheduled Tribe Category and the caste certificates were issued in favour of them prior to 1994 by the Naib Tahsildar. An advertisement was issued for filling up of the backlog posts under Special Drive Scheme for the State Service Examination and the last date for submission of application was 29 th October, 2003 and there was no condition in the advertisement that only the caste certificate issued by SDO (Revenue) or the Officer superior to him, would be acceptable. The petitioners appeared for the MP State Services Preliminary Examination, 2003 and they passed the preliminary examination. They appeared in the Main Examination 2 also and interview call letters were issued to the petitioners. In the interview call letters, it was clearly mentioned that the caste certificate issued by the competent authority would be acceptable. In the month of July, 2005, the final result was declared and the petitioners were declared as selected candidates. However, later on, the candidature of the petitioners has been cancelled on the ground that they have not submitted the caste certificate issued by SDO (Revenue) or Higher Officers. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the State Government by circular dated 20th February, 1991 (Annexure P10) had delegated the powers of issuing the caste certificates to Tahsildar and Naib Tahsildar. Another circular dated 1st August, 1996 (Annexure P-11) was issued with prospective effect by relying on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Laveti Giri and Another in Appeal No.4545/1995, decided on 18th April, 1995 and in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 and directed that the caste certificate shall be issued by SDO (Revenue)/Deputy Collector/Additional Collector/Collector. It is submitted that as there was no mention in the advertisement that only the caste certificate issued by SDO (Revenue) or any Senior Officer would be acceptable, therefore, the respondents cannot change the conditions of recruitment in the mid-way. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 3 SCC 11 and Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Another, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104.
Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that in the year 1996 a circular was issued that the caste certificate shall be issued by SDO (Revenue)/ Deputy Collector/Addl. Collector/Collector and the circular was issued in compliance of decision given by the Supreme Court. Since the recruitment took place in the year 2003, therefore, the circular dated 1st August, 1996 was in force and it cannot be said that the respondents have given retrospective effect to the circular dated 1 st August, 1996. As the petitioner failed to submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority and it is clear from the impugned notice that the petitioners were informed by the respondents that they should submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, but since they have failed to do so, therefore, their candidature was rejected.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned notice dated 15th November, 2005 (Annexure P1) is reproduced as under:-
**fo"k; %& jkT; lsok ijh{kk] 2003 ¼cSdykWx½ ds p;u lEcU/khA jkT; lsok ijh{kk 2003 ¼cSdykWx½ gsrq vkidk lk{kkRdkj fnukad 20-09-05 dks vk;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA foKkiu esa mfYyf[kr vkosnu i= Hkjus ds funsZ'k fcUnq Ø-7 ¼l½ vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr izek.k i= vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ vFkok mPp vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;k gqvk ekU; fd;k tk,xkA fookfgr efgykvksa dk firk ds uke yxk tkfr izek.k i= gh ekU; fd;k tk;sxkA vkidks mDr izek.k i= lk{kkRdkj le; rd izLrqr djus dk volj nsrs gq, bl ckcr lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq vkius okafNr tkfr 4 izek.k i= izLrqr ugh fd;k gSA 2@vr% funsZ'kkuqlkj lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkids } kjk l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk iznRr tkfr izek.k i= izLrqr ugha djus ls foKkiu ds iSjk rsjg ds vuqlkj jkT; lsok ijh{kk 2003 ¼csdykWx½ gsrq vugZ ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA ¼,y-ds- dqdjstk½ voj lfpo** It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that at the time of interview the petitioners were informed about the requirement of submission of caste certificates issued by SDO (Revenue) and accordingly, on 20 th September, 2005 itself, the petitioners had given in writing that they would submit the caste certificate issued by SDO (Revenue). When the petitioners failed to submit the caste certificate as required under the Circular dated 1 st August, 1996, therefore, their candidature was cancelled by notice dated 15 th November, 2005. The petitioners were informed well in time and they were given adequate opportunity and time to obtain the caste certificate as required in the circular dated 1st August, 1996 but still they failed to do so.
So far the contention of the petitioners that the requirements/conditions of recruitment were changed in the mid-way is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is misconceived and liable to be rejected. The circular dated 1 st August, 1996 was in force on 11th September, 2003 when the advertisement was issued, therefore, the petitioners were required to submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority. In view of the circular dated 1 st August, 1996 , it was not required for the respondents to specifically mention that only the caste 5 certificate issued by SDO (Revenue)/ Deputy Collector/ Additional Collector/ Collector would be acceptable. Once the respondents had demanded the caste certificate issued by the competent authority in accordance with the circular dated 1st August, 1996, then it cannot be said that they had changed the criteria or the conditions of recruitment in the mid of selection process. It is nowhere mentioned in the advertisement that the caste certificate issued by Naib Tahsildar/Tahsildar shall also be acceptable. Furthermore, the petitioners were given adequate time by the respondents by informing them during interview i.e. 20th September, 2005 that the caste certificate issued by them is not acceptable and, therefore, they must submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority. In spite of the opportunity of two months granted to the petitioners, they failed to submit the caste certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. SDO (Revenue). Even in the writ petition there is no averment that the petitioners have obtained the caste certificate issued by SDO (Revenue). Further, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioners do not belong to ''Majhi Caste'' and they belong to Other Backward Class(OBC). It is further submitted that as a direction was given by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), for framing of statutory rules for issuance of caste certificate, therefore, the circular dated 1 st August, 1996 has been issued.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the contention of the respondents that the petitioners do not belong to Scheduled Tribe but they belong to Other Backward Class (OBC), 6 further they have failed to produce the Caste Certificate issued by competent authority, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of caste certificate issued by the competent authority, the respondents did not commit any mistake in cancelling the candidature of the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2019.02.19 18:34:06 +05'30'